"...about to change"???
Posted on 03/27/2008 8:26:41 AM PDT by neverdem
When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans' "general right to bear arms," chances are very good the tone and direction of the long national debate over gun laws is about to change radically.
At a high court hearing March 18, Justice Kennedy, considered the pivotal vote in this case involving the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, said repeatedly the Founders intended citizens to have the right to own guns to defend themselves and their families against Indians, outlaws and wild animals, which is precisely what gun-rights advocates have argued for decades. In all likelihood, Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will join Justice Kennedy in declaring the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional.
It's good that justices finally will rule the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, but their desire to offer guidance on what constitutes "reasonable" and "common-sense" gun restrictions may prove problematic for legislatures, lower courts and law-abiding citizens for years to come. What a sportsman would consider common sense, for example, no doubt would seem unreasonable to a gun-controller.
With the gun debate changing so dramatically, it makes sense for Connecticut lawmakers to shelve the two unreasonable gun-control bills under consideration. The first would mandate serial numbers on bullets, the second, firing pins that stamp a code on the shell cartridge.
In theory, these measures would enable police to trace the bullets to their owner. But in the real world, the serial number would be obliterated the instant the bullet strikes an object less malleable than lead. Meanwhile, the stamping technology is in its infancy, is easily defeated, would not be required on the types of guns favored by criminals, and would require gun companies to retool their manufacturing and assembly processes; most have said it would be more economical to move their operations and high-paying jobs to other states. Finally, both bills would impose expensive unfunded costs on state and local police without guaranteeing any improvement in public safety.
Lawmakers should be in no hurry to enact gun-control laws that justices likely will vaporize when they strike down the D.C. gun ban in June.
This has NEVER stopped the antis before, and most likely after DC v Heller is ruled on.
Doesn't matter. The lawyers who are pushing these laws to require microstamping in various States just happen to also be the lawyers for the company that owns the patent on the process and technology.
But I'm sure that is just a strange coincidence. /s
It's not about control, it's about personal profit. No way in hell someone would voluntarily purchase the companies product so of course the solution is to require the product by law.
What happened to making money the old fashioned way, HARD EARNED?
"...about to change"???
the Founders intended citizens to have the right to own guns to defend themselves and their families against Indians, outlaws and wild animals,
Add “tyrannical governments” to that list.
SHHHHHHHHHH, they are listening.
I think it's the 'hard' part that they don't like.
No, they like the ‘hard’ part.
Looks like Krusty had it right:
“They’re [guns are] for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keepin’ the King of England outta your face. — Krusty the Clown ...
The author is supposing that the US Supreme Court will do any such thing.
IF they rule the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, they might just strike down the DC handgun ban and say nothing more. Want clarification? Submit another case for review after it's gone through the process and you seek relief from SCOTUS.
Or, they could remand Heller back down to DC Circuit Court with instructions. That would make me think they couldn't get five onboard for 'individual right'.
They could say the DC handgun ban is entirely reasonable.
There's no telling what will happen in this case.
I have no problem with that, but they also took another gun case yesterday or the day before involving the Lautenberg Amendment. I posted it.
There's no telling what will happen in this case.
True, but they don't like to contradicict themselves.
Most folks have seen Kennedy as the wild card in a 5 - 4 decision, but both Souter and Ginsburg have supported an individual right in the Muscarello decision. It was cited in the Circuit Court's Parker decision. I tried to compile all of Kennedy's statements and questions from the oral argument in comment# 1 of my link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.